Rice v. State
Decision Date | 26 October 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 19815.,19815. |
Citation | 120 S.W.2d 588 |
Parties | RICE v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Eastland County; B. W. Patterson, Judge.
Emmitt Rice was convicted of rape, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
T. M. Collie, of Eastland, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Appellant was convicted for the offense of rape on his ten year old daughter, and awarded a penalty of five years in the penitentiary by the jury.
There are two serious propositions presented in this case, either one of which, in our opinion, is sufficient to cause a reversal hereof.
Before the trial of this case began an affidavit of W. E. Rice was filed and presented to the court, such affidavit setting forth the fact that appellant was insane, and a person of unsound mind, and was incapable of making a rational defense of the charge made against him. Based thereon the appellant's attorney filed a written request that the question of appellant's present insanity "be first tried separate and apart from the case in which the defendant stands charged." This the court refused to do. However, he did include in his charge to the jury an exhaustive charge relative to insanity, and instructed the jury that if the appellant was insane at the time of the commission of the offense, to acquit him upon such grounds. In refusing to first try the issue of present insanity the court was in error. Undoubtedly Art. 34, Penal Code, contemplates that no person shall be tried while in an insane condition, and to submit to the jury the question of present insanity, as well as the question of guilt at one and the same time, might have the exactly opposite effect contemplated by and prohibited by the statute. That is to say, if the appellant was found insane at the time of the trial, nevertheless he had been tried for an offense while insane, which very fact it was the purpose of the statute to prevent.
The court's ruling was doubtless based on the bare wording of the statute which reads as follows:
It might have been reasoned by such court that it was necessary for the insanity to have intervened between the commission of the act and the trial before the trial herein asked for should be given. Our decisions, however, for many years have not thus construed this article.
In the early case of Guagando v. State, 41 Tex. 626, and following that case we find in Witty v. State, 69 Tex.Cr.R. 125, 131, 153 S.W. 1146, the following [page 1148]:
Also in Ramirez v. State, 92 Tex.Cr. R. 38, 241 S.W. 1020, 1021:
See, also, Norford v. State, 116 Tex.Cr. R. 533, 34 S.W.2d 290; Pickett v. State, 113 Tex.Cr.R. 395, 22 S.W.2d 136; Soderman v. State, 97 Tex.Cr.R. 23, 260 S.W. 607; Lester v. State, 69 Tex.Cr.R. 426, 154 S.W. 554, 555.
We are further impressed with the fact that the trial court was in error as is shown by bills of exceptions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, all of which relate to the same basic error.
From the facts it seems probable that the daughter of appellant had been taken before the grand jury, and had there made statements incriminating her father, and claiming that he had criminally...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Townsend v. State
...378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908. Note that this procedure was denounced in Ramirez v. State, supra. See also Rice v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 390, 120 S.W.2d 588. If such interpretation be given to the provisions of the 1965 Code of Criminal Procedure, then we would be required to d......
-
Wood v. State
...her as a witness. 1 The statement should not have been admitted under the guise of impeachment. See and compare Rice v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 390, 120 S.W.2d 588 (1938). We must, nevertheless, determine if the statement was admissible under some other In McCormick and Ray, Texas Law of Evide......
-
Chapman v. State, 19873.
...533, 34 S.W.2d 290; Pickett v. State, 113 Tex.Cr.R. 395, 22 S.W.2d 136; Soderman v. State, 97 Tex.Cr.R. 23, 260 S.W. 607; Rice v. State, 120 S.W.2d 588, delivered by this court on October 26th, but not yet reported [in State But this must be done at a proper time and we think the proper tim......
-
Ex parte Hodges
...22 S.W.2d 136; Norford v. State, 116 Tex.Cr.R. 533, 34 S.W.2d 290; Chapman v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 285, 124 S.W.2d 112; Rice v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 390, 120 S.W.2d 588; Amos v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 488, 237 S.W.2d It is clear that under the authorities cited the preliminary trial is to be ......